in the western world, where poverty is practically eliminated
Actually, we're talking about the US here, which is different from the rest of the western world. We have poverty. We have people who can't afford basic health care, and that is poverty.
And by poverty I mean REAL poverty, the one which can still be found in places in Africa, South America and Asia.
In other words, if you have some idea where you'll sleep tonight and where your next meal is coming from, you have no reason to complain? Even if you can't afford the medication that will keep you alive or unparalyzed or sane? Even if you can't afford to live anywhere your kids will get a decent education?
Inequality of outcome is inevitable, and can be good. We want to give incentives to people to do things that benefit society. Inequality of opportunity is also inevitable, and bad. We want to give everyone a chance to excel. Currently, we're doing a really bad job at that.
If it is not self-evident that taking money away from people because you think they have too much of it is wrong, then there is no further possible discussion.
I haven't seen any serious proposal to take money away from people because they have too much of it. I have seen lots of proposals to have graduated taxes on the grounds that the wealthy can better afford taxes, which is not the same thing.
Only when taxes are used for the intended purpose for taxes to begin with (to fund the needs as outlined in the Constitution, for US taxes) are they not equivalent to theft by threat of force.
Since the US Constitution explicitly grants Congress the right to tax and spend for the general welfare, without further restrictions on what they tax and spend for, all tax money used for the general welfare is, by your definition, not theft.
I've paid taxes as a small business in the US, when I was making money contracting out my services. For tax purposes, there's no difference between that and running a grocery store.
I had this form for business income. I listed my income, and I listed my expenses (not a whole lot of them, but some), and was taxed only on the net income.
If you're paying employees, that's a legitimate business expense, and you write it down as an expense on your tax form. This means that it doesn't contribute to your taxable income, and you don't get taxed on it. There are things you have to depreciate, which means you list part of it as an expense this year, part next, and so on for however long the IRS says you have to depreciate. You might have problems with taxes on personally buying a lot of capital for your company in that case.
What sort of setup are you talking about? If you've got a sole proprietorship, it's all personal money, but you fill out the income tax form that says what you spent on the business vs. what you made, and that affects your taxable income. If you buy that inventory for a bona fide business you run, you deduct the money from your taxable income.
If you've formed some sort of corporation, you should be able to buy that inventory with corporate funds, in which case it's not profit and won't be taxed.
No, it's asking for different sources. Not all are equally reliable.
Or, to put it another way, ad hominem isn't necessarily a fallacy. When a group is paid to come out with a report supporting a certain point of view, trusting them when they come out with a report supporting that point of view is only intelligent.
Feel free to distrust Soros-funded research as well. Research supported for political purposes is unreliable.
The WWII Fall of France was not due to a lack of technical and industrial wherewithal, except for a few short-term things (the French aviation industry was in the midst of transition). The Allies had a slight edge in tanks, and a slight edge in tanks with decent guns.
The Germans had superior doctrine, which meant that the German tanks and aircraft were used to much greater effect, and the French high command did some really stupid things. The war might have proceeded very differently if General Gamelin had let General Georges deploy troops as he wanted.
Net worth is orthogonal to income, lifestyle, and apparent affluence.
In other words, there are proportionately as many minimum-wage part-time workers with a million dollars stashed away as there are people making over a million a year who have a million dollars stashed away.
The homeless guy living under a bridge has as much chance of being rich enough to live off investments as the jet-setter.
The trick is to make sure the cod stay within their assigned boundaries. Failing that, it's rational to overfish your territory because cod will come in form other territories, and we're back where we started.
How many factories are financed by one person's money? Typically, there will be some external source of money, such as a bank loan or venture capital, neither of which require rich people.
I also haven't noticed a lack of economic activity from the higher-taxed countries.
Except that Spain wasn't going to allow any referendum, so that's the one they got. Spain was going to make sure no vote was fair, open, and legitimate.
The Southern secession was clearly about slavery. The Civil War started due to Southern aggression. It was fought primarily over secession. Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, but most of the Union didn't care that much about it. The Emancipation Proclamation was largely about establishing the Confederacy as pro-slavery and the Union as anti-slavery, which made it politically impossible for countries like Britain to intervene on the Confederate side.
I found that I could lose a brick of connection if I licked my finger and pressed hard on the junction. Apple made a dumb decision, but the effects were seriously overblown in the media.
The problem the Republicans have isn't so much Trump as the hardcore Trump supporters. The Republicans can't win based on the hardcore Trump supporters, and Trump's been alienating the rest of the Republican base (except for the super-rich). Support Trump and scare away voters. Don't support Trump and the Trump supporters will dump you. Neither is a path to victory.
Since we have compelling evidence that the entire Russian collusion narrative is actually one of DNC, FBI, and Clinton campaign interaction
I haven't seen compelling evidence. I've seen a lot of unsupported claims and more-or-less plausible speculation. I'm waiting for the investigations to be completed and the results made public before I come to a conclusion.
We have a free public square. It's called the World Wide Web. If you want to say something that neither Facebook nor Reddit will allow you to say (for whatever reason), you can find another site or start your own. If nobody's interested in what you say, tough. Free speech is not an obligation to listen.
The Nazis had their propaganda shut down by some DNS services and hosts. They found others, and kept spewing hateful nonsense. (You may notice that I don't like Nazis, but I do think they have the right of Free Speech. Just not anywhere I personally control.)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, we're talking about the US here, which is different from the rest of the western world. We have poverty. We have people who can't afford basic health care, and that is poverty.
In other words, if you have some idea where you'll sleep tonight and where your next meal is coming from, you have no reason to complain? Even if you can't afford the medication that will keep you alive or unparalyzed or sane? Even if you can't afford to live anywhere your kids will get a decent education?
I'm sorry, but you really did go irrational when the N-word was used. That looked like a trigger. Do you need a safe space?
Comparing the present-day US to the Weimar Republic can serve useful purposes.
Inequality of outcome is inevitable, and can be good. We want to give incentives to people to do things that benefit society. Inequality of opportunity is also inevitable, and bad. We want to give everyone a chance to excel. Currently, we're doing a really bad job at that.
I haven't seen any serious proposal to take money away from people because they have too much of it. I have seen lots of proposals to have graduated taxes on the grounds that the wealthy can better afford taxes, which is not the same thing.
Since the US Constitution explicitly grants Congress the right to tax and spend for the general welfare, without further restrictions on what they tax and spend for, all tax money used for the general welfare is, by your definition, not theft.
I've paid taxes as a small business in the US, when I was making money contracting out my services. For tax purposes, there's no difference between that and running a grocery store.
I had this form for business income. I listed my income, and I listed my expenses (not a whole lot of them, but some), and was taxed only on the net income.
If you're paying employees, that's a legitimate business expense, and you write it down as an expense on your tax form. This means that it doesn't contribute to your taxable income, and you don't get taxed on it. There are things you have to depreciate, which means you list part of it as an expense this year, part next, and so on for however long the IRS says you have to depreciate. You might have problems with taxes on personally buying a lot of capital for your company in that case.
What sort of setup are you talking about? If you've got a sole proprietorship, it's all personal money, but you fill out the income tax form that says what you spent on the business vs. what you made, and that affects your taxable income. If you buy that inventory for a bona fide business you run, you deduct the money from your taxable income.
If you've formed some sort of corporation, you should be able to buy that inventory with corporate funds, in which case it's not profit and won't be taxed.
No, it's asking for different sources. Not all are equally reliable.
Or, to put it another way, ad hominem isn't necessarily a fallacy. When a group is paid to come out with a report supporting a certain point of view, trusting them when they come out with a report supporting that point of view is only intelligent.
Feel free to distrust Soros-funded research as well. Research supported for political purposes is unreliable.
Even unsuccessful revolutions can lead to better conditions in the long run.
The WWII Fall of France was not due to a lack of technical and industrial wherewithal, except for a few short-term things (the French aviation industry was in the midst of transition). The Allies had a slight edge in tanks, and a slight edge in tanks with decent guns.
The Germans had superior doctrine, which meant that the German tanks and aircraft were used to much greater effect, and the French high command did some really stupid things. The war might have proceeded very differently if General Gamelin had let General Georges deploy troops as he wanted.
In other words, there are proportionately as many minimum-wage part-time workers with a million dollars stashed away as there are people making over a million a year who have a million dollars stashed away. The homeless guy living under a bridge has as much chance of being rich enough to live off investments as the jet-setter.
That is what you said. Do you stand by it?
Damn, growing up like that affected your intelligence and judgment. That's too bad.
The trick is to make sure the cod stay within their assigned boundaries. Failing that, it's rational to overfish your territory because cod will come in form other territories, and we're back where we started.
How many factories are financed by one person's money? Typically, there will be some external source of money, such as a bank loan or venture capital, neither of which require rich people.
I also haven't noticed a lack of economic activity from the higher-taxed countries.
Except that Spain wasn't going to allow any referendum, so that's the one they got. Spain was going to make sure no vote was fair, open, and legitimate.
The Southern secession was clearly about slavery. The Civil War started due to Southern aggression. It was fought primarily over secession. Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, but most of the Union didn't care that much about it. The Emancipation Proclamation was largely about establishing the Confederacy as pro-slavery and the Union as anti-slavery, which made it politically impossible for countries like Britain to intervene on the Confederate side.
I found that I could lose a brick of connection if I licked my finger and pressed hard on the junction. Apple made a dumb decision, but the effects were seriously overblown in the media.
Wouldn't that be the ideal time to sacrifice the pets to Satan or the FSM or something?
But did it have operational Bergenholms?
What ways are those? Are there ways to prevent them from being hacked by anyone but the manufacturers?
The problem the Republicans have isn't so much Trump as the hardcore Trump supporters. The Republicans can't win based on the hardcore Trump supporters, and Trump's been alienating the rest of the Republican base (except for the super-rich). Support Trump and scare away voters. Don't support Trump and the Trump supporters will dump you. Neither is a path to victory.
I haven't seen compelling evidence. I've seen a lot of unsupported claims and more-or-less plausible speculation. I'm waiting for the investigations to be completed and the results made public before I come to a conclusion.
Offensive according to whoever's providing the forum that you want to use. That's how it's always been.
Violent people should be arrested and charged for doing violent things. They should also have freedom of speech.
We have a free public square. It's called the World Wide Web. If you want to say something that neither Facebook nor Reddit will allow you to say (for whatever reason), you can find another site or start your own. If nobody's interested in what you say, tough. Free speech is not an obligation to listen.
The Nazis had their propaganda shut down by some DNS services and hosts. They found others, and kept spewing hateful nonsense. (You may notice that I don't like Nazis, but I do think they have the right of Free Speech. Just not anywhere I personally control.)